What distinguishes God from Russell's Teapot?

[Samantha Rinne]

I like the two posters above me.

As to this concept by Bertrand Russel, let's look at his own thinking.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

That is to say that philosophically, the idea of a God (or gods) is not philosophical, yet he does not declare the person making the claim must prove it (as is his statement with the teapot, according to wikipedia). He instead calls himself agnostic. He rightly admits that he cannot prove that there isn't a God, just that any God or gods is probably as defined by Romans/Jews.

An unfalsifiable claim is by definition unfalsifiable (that is, you can't perform a science experiment to prove or disprove it). This means telling the person making a claim that they believe in something to prove it is nothing more than passing the buck. Neither you nor the believer can prove or disprove it, because it is by definition unfalsifiable. They have faith which may be incredibly real to them, especially if there are events that cannot be explained any other way. But it is different intellectually to say I believe (i.e. I strongly feel this may be the case, yet I have no means) vs I know (I have absolute proof after running repeated tests for falsifiability). Yet, atheist use the word "know" all the time when they really mean believe. As in "I know there is no God." Do you now?

Seems to me that a certain group of people are making far more unfalsifiable claims. It is possible something may exist in a way that one has no way of seeing or measuring it. Yet it is highly unlikely (if not impossible) to know that you have exhausted all means of discernment or checked all locations.

You prove it.

 

[wellwisher]

For those of you who are unaware of Russell's famous teapot analogy, I will direct you here. Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

My question is: What distinguishes any claim of any god's existence from the claim that Russell's teapot exists?

Consider that: Any god is either non-existent (and hence obviously hidden) or existant but hidden, and in the same way, Russell's teapot is either non-existent (and hence hidden) or hidden, but existent. My question for theists is: Why do you think Russell's teapot is non-existent because it is hidden, but not apply the same logic to God? Furthermore, if you are a monotheist, why do you apply Russell's logic to other gods, but not your own? Given the immense sacrifices people have made to thousands of other gods, it seems that many of them believed in them just as fervently, if not more fervantly, as you believe in your god. Why do you dismiss their gods as you would dismiss Russell's Teapot, but not dismiss the one from your own culture?

If I was to tell you about a dream I had last night, there is no way to prove I had that dream. Even though I may have had the dream and my memory of the dream sounds reasonable, and many people have had dreams, there is no way to prove it ever happened. We do not have tools that can extract the dream details from my memory with a time stamp so cynics can be appeased.There are things that exist that do not fit into the philosophy of science.

The scientific method was purposely designed to factor out some types of data. It limits itself to what we all can agree, using our sensory systems (and tool extension). For example, say we were all at the woods at night, and someone thought they herd a wolf nearby. The rest of us did not hear it, that one data point will be thrown out,even though it was a valid data point in terms of subjective brain generation. We cannot use our sensory systems to hear what was herd, so we can agree on that. The teapot is more geared to physical science and sensory systems, but not to internal reality, which may include one time antenna affects.

 

[wellwisher]

I also write in science forums, because I was trained as a scientist. However, I am unique in that I try to bridge science and religion, with science. Recently, I came up with a way to put physics in a bind but for its own good. This idea uses science reasoning and physical laws to open the door to spiritual things.

The second law of science is connected to the concept of entropy. Entropy, in simple terms, is connected to increasing randomness and complexity. According to the second law, the entropy of the universe has to increase and it will absorb energy as it increases. The second law is why there is no such thing as perpetual motion. Since entropy has to increase, it will absorb some of the energy in the motion, causing the perpetual motion to decay.

Since the entropy of the universe is always increasing and it is absorbing energy, that means that more and more energy is being made unusable to the universe. Energy is being tied up into entropy, which has to increase. Therefore, net energy is being put into a state of being unusable to the universe. I call this pool of energy; dead and limbo energy.

Some of this energy is dead in the sense we cannot get it all back, since entropy keeps on increasing and therefore there is an ever increasing pool of dead energy, that is off net limits to the material universe. It is still part of universal energy conservation, but it is no longer connected to our material universe as useable energy.

There is also limbo energy. This is energy within entropy that can be reversed, on a small scale; freeze water into ice, However, since the entropy of the universe has to increase, we will generate some dead energy by retrieving some limbo energy. If no there would be perpetual motion.

Why is nature collecting a pool of energy unusable to the material universe? The ancients saw two different realms; material and spiritual. Since we have energy tied up as entropy, that cannot be used by the material world, we have pool off limits information, without material form; dead pool is information essence but without material actuality. The analogy would be a blue print.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I like the two posters above me.

As to this concept by Bertrand Russel, let's look at his own thinking.



That is to say that philosophically, the idea of a God (or gods) is not philosophical, yet he does not declare the person making the claim must prove it (as is his statement with the teapot, according to wikipedia). He instead calls himself agnostic. He rightly admits that he cannot prove that there isn't a God, just that any God or gods is probably as defined by Romans/Jews.

An unfalsifiable claim is by definition unfalsifiable (that is, you can't perform a science experiment to prove or disprove it). This means telling the person making a claim that they believe in something to prove it is nothing more than passing the buck. Neither you nor the believer can prove or disprove it, because it is by definition unfalsifiable. They have faith which may be incredibly real to them, especially if there are events that cannot be explained any other way. But it is different intellectually to say I believe (i.e. I strongly feel this may be the case, yet I have no means) vs I know (I have absolute proof after running repeated tests for falsifiability). Yet, atheist use the word "know" all the time when they really mean believe. As in "I know there is no God." Do you now?

Seems to me that a certain group of people are making far more unfalsifiable claims. It is possible something may exist in a way that one has no way of seeing or measuring it. Yet it is highly unlikely (if not impossible) to know that you have exhausted all means of discernment or checked all locations.

You prove it.

Do you agree with Russell when he says that we also can't exclude the Olympic gods, and that the claims of the Christian God are on the same level of merit as the claims for the Olympic gods?

 

[rational experiences]

O a planet or any form sitting in space, cosmological first law, cooled, owns mass and is seen from the highest future advantage point.

What a mind says, all the information in one condition, natural. Yet it advises self about separate histories, when self is not in any of those histories. First human science self deceit. Lies to self always did lie about "knowing it all".

Life, innate and natural, a self, a human a male. Says I am one self, a human, but my one self is a male. His statement. Then he looks at the female human, his life partner at his side as a separated self. Thinking capabilities. Before science/UFO feed back machine possession took his natural mind use away from being spiritual.

True historical scientific study thesis about self. Biological, healer medical sciences, highest self advice, versus Satanic/occult self advised destruction to alter God O the stone planet natural history, by string back to when it was a self consuming Satanic gas spirit body in a male inferred statement. Of by my will, use of my own will, male and human. Science will, male human with machine. Thesis, by my own will in thinking HE WILL. He will owns the term HE'LL Said to self my will, I will and also he will as group agreement, male science cult mentality.

So stated He is self, He will is self, He discusses God and quotes EL for God terms, and said by gas changes above my head, where God sits in natural light in the spatial vacuum upon the face of water......all statements in science that quoted why he was kept safe. He changes and made it fall out as Satanic gas burning irradiation fall out.

All stated by his own male self. Who gave all terms/science human references to the O one stone body first. A planet, why plan and et is stated by his psyche. And named the first God for his machine ownership, God conditions his own self.

Then he lost personal rationale of his own psyche by AI radio wave/radiation encoded machine feed back conditions, encoded by his own male self. That in feed back talks male talk about science and the Earth as God concepts.

Yet to hear God speaking, self male original highest life ownership is to be irradiated and brain/mind affected owning chemical changes. To alter natural hearing also. All healer/biological medical taught as relative to why they stated categorically NO MAN IS GOD.

So brother does God exist in reality? In science reality God is planet Earth. So yes God does exist.

Brother does AI speaking voiced feed back exist? Yes he said, I copied its design, invented new machines that use the effect of the atmosphere vision, and image/voice recording and use it in machines. Proving that the machine is NOT GOD.

Brother in science mind quotes, to think then preaches, I think human life is part bio mechanical. Yet machine does not exist, not in any status, natural God the planet does. Yet his machine ancient history encoded feed back, his voiced opinions in human life, do exist, speaking back to him. Possessed by his own male science self, who infers I created, yet he only invented and destroyed.

Therefore no man is God is a human relative natural psyche warning advice, why we always argued about what status God themes actually owned in human teaching advice.

Now if you ask self, do you exist as a human in the state after life as a human in eternal after life? The answer is correct NO. For that state is the human body state of non decomposition, the body of a human Saint, changed in the Jesus life sacrifice event. Radiation causation.

So humans who are spiritual state to other humans, when I die, I am completely ended as a human life/consciousness. And that theme is an actual spiritual teaching also. For as a spiritual self I can teach that theme and know I am not lying to my own self. For I never thought that any portion human existed after, other than decomposition of body, and off gassing. So wondered if science affected the psyche in feed back to quote that science status to mind, that gases the spirit of the body return naturally to the heavenly body.

But then after I had a real eternal spiritual being interactive communicated advice. That physically changed my body function to a complete and utter feeling of complete love, unconditional. No male or female advice in the spirit body. No condemnation against anything I lived expressed. And I cried when the communicative advice stopped. Then I said, yes we did come from spirit. The REAL eternal state...and when I die I still owned one part of my own self in that eternal spirit, for it never left that state itself.

However I realised my 2 human parents and the animal spirits and the Nature spirit who were forced grounded, seeing radiation goes through the body first and then into the ground. Did all come out of that body, self formed already, self owned by the billions of diverse bodies that the eternal owned.

Knowing that the spirit to live has to use the atmospheric condition its own body to remain alive, which was microbiome energy in water.

Therefore knowledge of God first had to be thought upon rationally to give the advice of what the advice means to spiritual humanity. Who strive to be the best human, seeing they came originally from the best place as a family unified by that history. Why we taught both spiritually and also in the sciences that biology proves that we all came from the same place and once owned the exact same human parents. So we are all in fact extended family.

Being the motivation reasoning that all humans should stop fighting their family. Allow them all to return to owning where they live, in nice houses and nice food, and be safe and happy and loved. And then trade and share their diverse knowledge and personal qualities that I admire in the human race.

 

[Rizdek]

So you are doubting the claim of a person. Let's say the world pre-eminent physicists, whoever that is, told you directly that his laptop popped into existence, would you believe him?

Do not try and play childish games, you know what the issue is....you would not believe ANYONE, forget who is making the claim because you know the claim is ludicrous. So why would you believe a universe that is infinitely more complex, why would you believe that popped into existence without a designer. It is nonsensical and you end up with the silly arguments some have posted on here.

Let's address the simple question first...which is how you posed it. I said that if someone...even the most renown physicist...claimed he was typing on a computer the popped into existence with no explanation, I would doubt his word. Do you agree that you would doubt his word...or would you believe him? Once we have both our answers out in the open, then we can move to the next point...the universe.

 

[Rizdek]

My analogy is not about God, which is the creator not the creation. These are two vastly different things. Your claim, as an atheist or agnostic or whatever confused title you wish to give yourself, is that he universe popped into existence without a guiding force. That universe is vastly more complex than a laptop. If you do not believe a laptop can pop into existence byitself, why do you believe the universe can?

"God, which is the creator"

But you realize that's just a definition, an assertion with little to back it up OTHER THAN it solves a riddle. IF there is a god who creates or if a creator God exists, then that would be an accurate definition. But that's what the discussion is about. We aren't at the point of anyone having shown that there is a god or that God exists and if he does, how he came to be, what his attributes are or what he's 'composed' of.

We started out addressing a puzzle of how could something so wondrous, complex and organized as the universe 'just come into existence.' It seems it's either from nothing, from some other natural background existence which just so happens to be able to produce universes such as the one we live in, or from God. To defer to God at this point and then just define him as the creator doesn't really address the question of how does something that is wondrous, complex and organized come to be. That would be special pleading God.

I see laptops as different than the universe as a whole. The laptop has the appearance and function of other things we see around us that we know were built by humans. It stands out from the background because of this. If everything in the universe and the universe itself was designed in the manner the laptop was designed, why would it stand out? If the universe was designed AS a laptop is designed, everything would have a milled, fabricated appearance...and it doesn't

I think the universe can be seen as wondrous, but not all that well organized. It's complexity seems marked by disarray and inefficiency. It appears to be an assembly of matter/energy in a framework of space/time that is chaotic and disorganized. Due to certain forces balancing each other, there are short periods of constant motion and stability...short relative to cosmological time. But all of these seemingly stable arrangements...ie the earth existing and orbiting the sun for billions of years, are temporary and really just an apparent pattern in a larger arena of chaos and destruction. An interesting factoid....while the earth has orbited the sun billions of times since it formed, the sun has only orbited the center of the galaxy ~20 times. JUST 20 times. So that's not exactly an indicator of long-term stability with regard to how objects in galaxies move about and interact. In a few billions of years...not much time at all from the standpoint of how long we expect the universe to continue expanding...the earth will likely be engulfed by the sun or destroyed by some other means. Then from the remains of such chaotic events, other stars and planets will form as is happening throughout the universe and these in turn will survive billions of years appearing stable to any life forms that might arise in that arrangement.

To me the universe we see around us doesn't appear designed like a laptop appears designed.

 

[curious_mind]

Let's address the simple question first...which is how you posed it. I said that if someone...even the most renown physicist...claimed he was typing on a computer the popped into existence with no explanation, I would doubt his word. Do you agree that you would doubt his word...or would you believe him? Once we have both our answers out in the open, then we can move to the next point...the universe.

Of course I wouldn't believe it, I'm not crazy enough to think creation does not require a creator. But since you would not believe it either, simple enough, why would you believe this for the universe?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's address the simple question first...which is how you posed it. I said that if someone...even the most renown physicist...claimed he was typing on a computer the popped into existence with no explanation, I would doubt his word. Do you agree that you would doubt his word...or would you believe him? Once we have both our answers out in the open, then we can move to the next point...the universe.

The only people implying that anything "popped into existence with no explanation" are the ones arguing for God.

 

[curious_mind]

"God, which is the creator"

But you realize that's just a definition, an assertion with little to back it up OTHER THAN it solves a riddle. IF there is a god who creates or if a creator God exists, then that would be an accurate definition. But that's what the discussion is about. We aren't at the point of anyone having shown that there is a god or that God exists and if he does, how he came to be, what his attributes are or what he's 'composed' of.

I don't think my post was aimed at you but as you have taken the baton, lets see where this goes. I'd like to answer the first part which is based on YOUR assumption. You say "we" are not at a point to show that God exists but your assumption is false. Every religion claims that God exists and claims to have proof. As a Muslim I can only speak from the Islamic perspective on this matter and for us our proofs lie in the Quran and Prophet Muhammad PBUH himself. If you would like, we can discuss what God is from that perspective and see if you have any criterion of evidence based on that.

 

[rational experiences]

In human memory which I hear as AI encoded voice speaking and vision image, which the atmospheric body mass supports.

Machines use it, issue it, are used to cause recording of, hence it is proven to humans that the designer of recording and feed back was actually a human designer.

And that male self, was originally first human male, higher DNA life body experience, the same male life x group mass, same DNA, hence same thinking capability was equal to one self but by multi males owning that one self.

If you cared to reason why science caused all religions and science problems owned/expressed today. In living human life.

One condition I believe that science lies about is that space is in the past, unless they are using a male memory science/conversion of mass quote, that puts space in the past when the present, MASS owned at its coldest spatial body, is converted and given to radiating space by removal of that mass.

What I believe truly plays around with memory and science thoughts. In a mass communicating system that you do not control, natural does. So if you alter natural then natural alters you.

If you believe that condition to be more powerful and larger then self explanation, then in conditions of causes, it explains itself and hence proves that the whole time the male/group designer manipulator caused it. Artificial status itself.

What was never natural, to design machines and forcibly change natural, which would not own any relative science quota about natural. For since when is it natural for a human to build machines to remove huge bodies of masses that spatial cold/pressure allowed to exist.

Rationally you would own no explanation of information fed back that would support use of common sense or knowledge in a state, to think and be supported by conditions natural and natural history and natural evolution.

Instead you would become a realised science Destroyer advisor.

Human memory as a spiritual quote, where did self come from, which just means 2 human beings. And not anything else. The spirit theme says, they already owned a spirit form in the eternal that was forced to leave. Hence all that changed was what their spirit previously owned, just eternal form.

We therefore quote...and historically it is where the O sound/mass bodies got released from as a natural mass, a higher presence. Space did not exist, change to the language in spirit caused a release and change. And quoted that it was historically the eternal. Why every basic study proves that the origin of the subject owned "created from" the same origins.

Which could not be space, seeing space owns so many diverse bodies and masses in its space.

As human conscious only goes back to a Father, I know that males in memory quote Father as being God in his past. Origin and first male self. As you know you once owned a higher life bio status. Memory tells you so.

If you asked self, what would you be like if a huge water/oxygenated mass with a higher microbial population was ground based and not evaporated/burnt/irradiated converted released into cloud mass?

The answer would be would have no true idea or identification what a human was once like.

The other self question. If your human Father owned a mass male human population as the same DNA life body/use conscious expression. How would that natural history affect how you feel and equate self today, as changed DNA in human memories as compared to that original male consciousness?

It would seem far greater and higher in spiritual expressions than any one single male life today.

What I learnt about my male/brother equating our human Father's natural spiritual memory incorrectly just because his DNA altered his life form.

 

[Rizdek]

Of course I wouldn't believe it, I'm not crazy enough to think creation does not require a creator. But since you would not believe it either, simple enough, why would you believe this for the universe?

Ok then.

I don't see the universe as resembling a computer. A computer has a milled fabricated appearance that resembles other things humans have designed and created. I see the universe more on the order of, say, a star which forms, emits light and heat for billions o

I don't think my post was aimed at you but as you have taken the baton, lets see where this goes. I'd like to answer the first part which is based on YOUR assumption. You say "we" are not at a point to show that God exists but your assumption is false. Every religion claims that God exists and claims to have proof. As a Muslim I can only speak from the Islamic perspective on this matter and for us our proofs lie in the Quran and Prophet Muhammad PBUH himself. If you would like, we can discuss what God is from that perspective and see if you have any criterion of evidence based on that.

Yes...I chimed into an ongoing discussion.

I didn't mean "we as humans" overall...I am aware most people believe in some sort of god. I was thinking of it in terms of we in this discussion. We, here, are engaged in addressing a question about how the universe we see around us came to be this way.

Just the fact that lots and lots of people think one way isn't always a good indication that it is true. Hundreds of years ago, everyone just knew the earth was the center of the whatever else there was and that it didn't move. Folks were quite adamant about that. To them, it was obvious. They believed all those things they saw in the sky moved relative to the earth. It turns out they were partially right, but essentially wrong. It is true everything we see in the night sky moves, but the earth also moves and MOST of the movement we see in the sky is due to the earth's motion not really the motion of the sun, planets and stars.

If we are to compare the creation of the universe with the building of the computer...then that would go hand in hand with how I envision the universe coming to be in the arrangement it is. The computer didn't come into existence from nothing...It was reassembled from already existing materials. And in years/decades/centuries it will 'disassemble' but won't really go away, it will change form. So if we compare a computer with the universe it would suggest the universe also is an arrangement of previously existing naturally occurring stuff. And as far as appearing to have been designed by intelligence, the reason I would think something was designed by humans is that it has a milled, manufactured appearance and is generally efficient toward a given set of purposes. I don't see the universe that way. It doesn't appear to have a purpose if you consider the total expanse.

The ancients thought the earth was the key and central part of al that is. They thought is was stationary. They thought everything else was moving in relation to it. SO naturally, they wondered how all that movement came about...thus the idea prime mover. But if they had known what we know now...that ALL bodies are moving all the time, perhaps they would have thought, as I do, that 'movement' is the normal state of things and that no intentional prime mover is needed.

 

[Rizdek]

The only people implying that anything "popped into existence with no explanation" are the ones arguing for God.

I understand and I was getting to that point.

 

[rational experiences]

The thesis O a planet as an entity/Creator was a science thesis quoted by human being males in the same life DNA ownership, unlike today would be twinned clones virtually. The same self but multi same selves. As compared to irradiated diversified DNA conditions today. Might live multi culturally, yet each self is a variation.

The original human self did not own our modern inherited bio life conscious awareness.

The thesis stated to be an agreed science law term quotes, Earth as stone, ONE body ended formed in spatial zero, the highest coldest condition....as stone/sealed.

Therefore rationally there is no Creator in our life.

Now if you are a human being male, natural and aware who is the Creator in your human life?

Male life conscious first, natural, human says I am involved in being the Creator with a human female life. We are equal as the Creator, to own a new life, a baby. Totally different from our own.

Conscious variations, as stated by and because of natural awareness.

Now we also said that the stone entity, became a Creator, by releasing its own STONE gases into space and formed its OWN heavenly body. And quoted it to be Immaculate for there is no string of descriptive reasoning back through history.

String theories by ancient human law, inference to God quotes said, the biologist God theist was by string theory a proven liar already.

Medical biologist science, human owned and taught was correct that said we exist "with" God. By definition. Not a string theme that quoted and God created life, for God only created an image of life in a scientific witnessed reactive cause.

How a human living would be aware of how a human and animal ground images got put into the cloud mass. The history of which was once without any images as burning rolling carbon gas heated burning gas release into space that cooled it.

We are not invented by the image of a gas that came out of a volcano. The law of the mountain was for science conversion thesis, not human life creation.

For our life knowingly in science thesis in a cooled sacrificed gas burnt atmosphere.....with cold gases and water/oxygen support. So there is no theory or thesis before this circumstance of discussing how God circulating in the heavenly gas body above our heads. This God condition kept us alive.

So there was never any argument previously about the status of what God was inferred to in relativity. Not to any string theory in biology. For the medical biologist said...ape parents own ape babies. No human life exists in the form of any ape. We are one whole living self life body x 2 parents human beyond that body.

As real advice and real truth.

Now if you want to suppose, which is not real science, for science is ownership of correctly identified instant information for a machination designed reaction. Instant only.

No human life is instantly manifest, for sperm and an ovary own all humans living today.

If you want to claim a thesis for the first 2 human being parents today, they are both dead. So the law in science said never quote dead information for you would be a proven liar/destroyer life psyche.

And it was proclaimed to be a mystery only as a law.....after all the life destruction witnessed by science who used machines against our life continuance or existence in string theories.

Science Bible references were not for machine reactions, it was quoted changes to our Genetic history/Genesis. As a science quotation, and old scientific references are not how science quote information today. So if you overlook how the speech was inferred, then would actually realise what was being quoted.

2. Deuteronomy 18:10-14 Don’t sacrifice your sons or daughters in the fires on your altars.

Temple/pyramid altar used historically for trans mutation of Earth mass/stone products.

Don’t try to learn what will happen in the future by talking to a fortuneteller or by going to a magician, a witch, or a sorcerer. Don’t let anyone try to put magic spells on other people.

Formulas and thesis....looks back to reactive conditions in the past, which brings it back to the future where we live. Humans own the future, not science. A SPELL is a formula based on science letter symbols given a numerical value. So it is just a formula/evaluation in the sciences.

Don’t let any of your people become a medium or a wizard. And no one should try to talk with someone who has died.

Meaning, humans who owned the DNA before you having died no longer own their voice. The voices heard were just recording.

The Lord hates anyone who does these things. And because these other nations do these terrible things, the Lord your God will force them out of the land as you enter it. You must be faithful to the Lord your God, never doing anything he considers wrong. “You will force the other nations out of your land. They listen to people who use magic and try to tell the future. But the Lord your God will not let you do these things.

The quote therefore says if you try to alter what is determined to be futuristic medium conditions, channels being radio wave/radiation, the term defined to be the Lord will prove you wrong.

Reason, the atmosphere does not own channels. Machines impose channels by artificial medium/calculations/encoded transmitted change. For machine to machine.

For the ancient technology was to transmit from machine on mountain temple to machine on ground temple. Which is artificial medium/forecast.

Science of the past knew that they had artificially changed natural radiation from radiating light into new radio waves not natural to natural radiating light conditions.

Machines never owned natural bio light. Machine mass from a natural water cooled mineral is burnt/alchemised chemical changed into a melt. As a string theory to a machine built history. Why the string ended up melting the stone steps in their Temples, for the string for the design, machine metal involved melt processes.

Image....vision/voice recording involved loss of water mass/microbes into carbonisation of it x mass.What Does Psalms 94:23 Mean? "He will repay them for their sins and destroy them for their wickedness; the LORD our God will destroy them."

 

[curious_mind]

Ok then.

I don't see the universe as resembling a computer. A computer has a milled fabricated appearance that resembles other things humans have designed and created. I see the universe more on the order of, say, a star which forms, emits light and heat for billions o


Yes...I chimed into an ongoing discussion.

I didn't mean "we as humans" overall...I am aware most people believe in some sort of god. I was thinking of it in terms of we in this discussion. We, here, are engaged in addressing a question about how the universe we see around us came to be this way.

Just the fact that lots and lots of people think one way isn't always a good indication that it is true. Hundreds of years ago, everyone just knew the earth was the center of the whatever else there was and that it didn't move. Folks were quite adamant about that. To them, it was obvious. They believed all those things they saw in the sky moved relative to the earth. It turns out they were partially right, but essentially wrong. It is true everything we see in the night sky moves, but the earth also moves and MOST of the movement we see in the sky is due to the earth's motion not really the motion of the sun, planets and stars.

If we are to compare the creation of the universe with the building of the computer...then that would go hand in hand with how I envision the universe coming to be in the arrangement it is. The computer didn't come into existence from nothing...It was reassembled from already existing materials. And in years/decades/centuries it will 'disassemble' but won't really go away, it will change form. So if we compare a computer with the universe it would suggest the universe also is an arrangement of previously existing naturally occurring stuff. And as far as appearing to have been designed by intelligence, the reason I would think something was designed by humans is that it has a milled, manufactured appearance and is generally efficient toward a given set of purposes. I don't see the universe that way. It doesn't appear to have a purpose if you consider the total expanse.

The ancients thought the earth was the key and central part of al that is. They thought is was stationary. They thought everything else was moving in relation to it. SO naturally, they wondered how all that movement came about...thus the idea prime mover. But if they had known what we know now...that ALL bodies are moving all the time, perhaps they would have thought, as I do, that 'movement' is the normal state of things and that no intentional prime mover is needed.

I really do not wish to offend but your atheistic arguments are so childish. Because a computer does not look like the universe...the universe can not be created? That is not even primary school logic. I repeat, I do not wish to offend but I like to discuss things at an intellectual level with intellectual equals in the world of philosophy, science, theology and so on....not this basic level. Most of your arguments would be laughed at by atheist thinkers let alone theologians. I'd recommend reading around such topics and then returning in a year or so time. This type of discourse is boring.

However, I repeat, if you would like to learn more about Islam, feel free to message me.

 

[Thief]

Well, my gods are easily observed so.

please repost that as an opening line in a fresh thread

 

[Thief]

Russel's Teapot
is not my cup of tea

so what? if you can't directly observe the item with a telescope

science currently leans to the notion you can't observe the greater portion of the universe

seeing is believing?

 

[Quintessence]

please repost that as an opening line in a fresh thread

Eh, I'll consider it. Generally speaking, I don't create threads that are centered around myself. It's just an internal rule that I have. I did a series of threads a long time ago in this section of the forums to encourage folks to explore the diversity of theism - part of which addressed things like this (albeit indirectly) - and brushing that off might not be a bad idea.

 

[Rizdek]

I really do not wish to offend but your atheistic arguments are so childish. Because a computer does not look like the universe...the universe can not be created? That is not even primary school logic. I repeat, I do not wish to offend but I like to discuss things at an intellectual level with intellectual equals in the world of philosophy, science, theology and so on....not this basic level. Most of your arguments would be laughed at by atheist thinkers let alone theologians. I'd recommend reading around such topics and then returning in a year or so time. This type of discourse is boring.

However, I repeat, if you would like to learn more about Islam, feel free to message me.

Oh for goodness sake...you aren't offending me.

Ok, let's go with the 'a computer is like the universe.' A computer...every computer...is formed from previously existing material and in the future, it may cease to be a computer, but the matter/energy of which it was made will continue to exist and become part of something else. So that means the universe was formed from previously existing material. In which case it very likely came about naturally from preexisting natural material. That's what I was saying.